Well he did say—in the preceding paragraph—that he was adjusting them to show them as actions. So he isn’t trying to say they are the four noble truths. Let’s at least give him that. And he wouldn’t be the first to modify the dhamma in an attempt to simplify it, thereby obscuring it even further—that’s been happening for 2000 years. At least he admitted it beforehand which doesn’t completely mislead people. Having said that, his attempt is crap.

Some additional words for the university: When faced with such a massive body of literature (and a great deal of hot air) it is difficult to know what to choose to represent it. Obviously it is best to start with something simple. However Mr. Whateverhisface’s book has made a critical error with a concept that is supposed to represent the whole what the Buddha taught. Setting people up with confusing, streamlined information can make further understanding very daunting. I think it would be beneficial and responsible to provide material that does not take such careless risks and provides a bland and simple knowledge base which—contrary to popular belief—will better prepare people for what they will encounter if they choose to study further.

Maybe you could rewrite the little block, yourself, to more effectively reflect what Batchelor actually said which was:

Anguish, he says, is to be understood, its origins to be let go of, its cessation to be realized, and the path to be cultivated.

All taken, of course, from the first sermon. If you try to do a better job of expressing what the author of the text book expressed badly, at the very least you might find what I found when I tried: it's not an easy thing to do in such a small space, in a way that a new student will understand. At best, they might be grateful and fix the error with your revision.